Relief sought in main writ petition cannot be granted as interim relief.

N.K. JAIN, ACJ.

This writ appeal has been filed against the interim order of stay granted in W.M.P. No. 27581 of 1999 in W.P. No. 18879 of 1999 dated December 30, 1999.

The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows :

The Jet Airways (India) Ltd., is running air services throughout the country. It entered into an agreement on a contract of labour with Proteam from July 11, 1998 to December 31, 1999 and Team V. Corporate Services, Chennai from January 1, 1999 to December 31, 1999 respondents 4 and 5 respectively, for doing services like loading, unloading, driving, operating certain ground services equipments etc.

The petitioners-sangam in W.P. 18879 of 1999 on November 24, 1999 filed writ petition contending that the workers of the sangam had worked for about 3 to 5 years and since there was a demand from the workers for 20 % bonus, the third respondent-management has terminated the services of 100 workers. They also alleged that the 3rd respondent management introduced contract labour system, and displaced the contract of service between the Jet Airways and its workers, which is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Workmen of F.C.I. v. FCI (1985-II-LLJ-4). Therefore, they submitted that the removal of 168 workers by the Management of Jet Airways (India) Ltd., is arbitrary, illegal and against the provisions of the Act. They also filed W.M.P. No. 27580 of 1999 for an interim injunction restraining the 3rd respondent from engaging any other persons in the place of the 168 workers. W.M.P. No. 27581 of 1999 for an interim direction, to provide employment on daily wages as before to the 168 workers, and W.M.P. No. 29242 of 1999 for an interim injunction restraining the respondents from recruiting fresh hands in the place of the petitioners without first employing the 168 workers.The third respondent-Jet Airways filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations as alleged in the writ miscellaneous petitions. Third respondent-Jet Airways has also filed a detailed counter affidavit in the writ petition, denying the allegations as alleged, and also denied the fact that the alleged 168 workers are working from 1993/94 and 1995. It is stated that none of the alleged workers was ever employed by the third respondent. It is stated that all the employees were recruited by the 4th and 5th respondents, and the third respondent-Jet Airways is in no way responsible for their recruitment. It is also stated that the contracts with the 4th and 5th respondents were not in existence on the date of filing of the writ petition and a new contract was entered into with the 6th respondent. It is further contended that under the scheme of the Act, conciliation officers were appointed to hold the conciliation proceedings and since the conciliation has not been closed by the conciliation officer on the date of filing of the writ petition the prayer for issuance of mandamus to refer the dispute is totally premature and as such it cannot be countenanced. It is also contended that providing employment, on daily wages pending disposal of the industrial dispute has no legal basis.

The learned single Judge, on considering the affidavit and other available records pertaining to W.M.P. Nos. 27580, 27581 and 29242 of 1999, and the case laws cited, and after a detailed discussion, directed the third respondent in W.M.P. No. 27581 of 1999 to provide work to 168 workers who were previously employed by the contractors viz. Proteam, Chennai (4th respondent) and Team-V Corporate Services, Chennai (5th respondent) on daily wages basis, on the same conditions of work as that are applicable to them earlier. Hence, the present writ appeal is before us.We have heard the parties. Impleading petition in C.M.P. No. 1956 of 2000 is allowed and Universal Services, Chennai is impleaded as 6th respondent in the writ appeal. We have heard the vacate stay petition.

Mr. A. L. Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the app